Article Tools

Defense attorney Darryl Genis is no stranger to courtroom drama. Tuesday morning, however, a violation of three court orders during the course of one case resulted in a $3,000 sanction for the outspoken lawyer, who said in an email he has already appealed the decision from Judge Brian Hill. The sanction amount means that Genis is required to self-report the sanctions to the California State Bar. The violations came during a fairly run-of-the-mill DUI trial, where the defendant was found guilty of driving under the influence and not guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 or higher.

During a pretrial hearing, Genis was caught trying to record a video of Officer Kasi Beutel on the stand, prompting Hill to tell both attorneys that they needed his permission to record audio or video. But on June 11, during a break from trial, Genis snapped a photo of Beutel ​— ​whom Genis alleged has participated in widespread misconduct in the past ​— ​talking in the back of the courtroom with her husband, Mark Corbett, another SBPD officer.

Genis ​— ​who has been held in contempt by Hill in the past but won his appeal in that case ​— ​told Hill he did so because he believed Corbett was coaching his wife on her testimony and wanted to document their interaction. He chided the court for not holding Corbett and Beutel responsible for “doing something equally wrong, if not more wrong.” But Hill noted that he held a hearing and gave Deputy DA Justin Greene a sharp talking-to about the appearance of collusion between an officer witness in the case and another officer.

Genis admitted he violated the court order but claimed he had substantial justification to do so because it was reasonable to think the two were acting inappropriately. But Hill asked why Genis didn’t bring it to his attention. “It was a very specific, clear order,” said Hill, who had to caution Genis several times to remain calm and keep his voice down, as the attorney often interrupted the judge. “There’s orderly ways to proceed, and there’s other ways to proceed,” he said.

Genis also got in trouble for questions he asked of both Beutel ​— ​whom he called a liar in court Monday ​— ​and Officer Aaron Tudor, the investigating officer in the case, regarding their past statements. Hill admonished both sides that they were not to bring up any prior acts of any witness on the stand in the presence of the jury and that the issue should be decided outside the jury’s presence. But Genis asked Beutel whether she, in writing or orally, gave sworn testimony that was not both true and correct. An objection from the prosecutor was sustained by the judge. Genis later asked a different question of Tudor which the judge deemed was also an attempt to bring up prior acts.

“I repeated it, I repeated it, I repeated it,” Hill said of his admonition not to bring up any prior acts of moral turpitude. “To me, this is indefensible.”

Greene mostly sat quietly while Hill and Genis went back and forth Monday. He provided a statement after the hearing. “The District Attorney’s office respects the court process and feels that Judge Hill made the correct decision today to sanction Darryl Genis $3,000 for violating three separate court orders associated with a jury trial that concluded late last week,” Greene said in the statement. “The fair administration of justice requires that both sides ​— ​whether the prosecution or defense ​— ​adhere to the court’s orders so that neither party is prejudiced.”

Genis, in comments sent after the hearing via an email in which he talked about governmental lies and corruption, said Hill “clearly has more interest in protecting Beutel from being publicly exposed as the documented liar she is than in protecting a citizen accused’s Constitutional 6th Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.” He said he is “willing to put myself in harm’s way in civil disobedience in order to expose corrupt government officials like Beutel, Corbett and Tudor.”

Hill, for his part, said he didn’t want his courtroom turned into a circus. “I issue orders that I see as appropriate in terms of how I want this courtroom conducted,” he said. Genis must pay the money by July 3.

Note: There were a few errors in this piece which have been corrected. First of all, Judge Brian Hill did not impose a fine on attorney Darryl Genis; it was a monetary sanction. Secondly, a typo erroneously rendered the quoted phrase “both true and correct” to “both true or correct.” Finally, the article misstated a question, ruled improper, that Genis asked Officer Aaron Tudor on the stand: Genis asked Tudor whether he was aware that not all of his DUI arrests were good enough for the DA to prosecute and followed up with a question about a specific case in the past.

SO, the Deputy DA Justin Green gets a "sharp" talking to by the biased judge about obvious misconduct he, as a prosecutor, is mandated to preclude, but the judge sanctions Daryl Genis for conscientiously cross examining a rogue cop who has been all over the news because it appears she is dirty? Wait, did I read this properly? Did the judge PRECLUDE impeachment of MORAL TURPITUDE of the cop who has a history of lying?

Ach tung!

Okay, I keep repeating myself because this is nonsensical. Judge doesn't sanctions bad prosecutor for letting lying cop and husband collude. CHECK. Clearly biased judge precludes proper cross examination on matter of moral turpitude of the cop. CHECK. The only person doing his job properly in the courtroom by fully representing his client gets sanctions. CHECK.

Okay, now I get it. Judge, you need to get a job at the DMV. You'd fit right in.

Boy, I've heard of bias, but this judge just takes the cake. Clearly, he was annoyed that the last time he tried to sanctions this lawyer, he was reversed. Guess he was just waiting for another time.

If the judge ordered him not to "record audio or video" then taking a still photo doesn't really break the rules, right? I mean, if the order was that specific, then it seems like Genis could win the appeal against this judge. And if he's won an appeal of sanctions by this judge before, then maybe it's the judge who is out to get Genis. I'd be interested to see how many other lawyers or district attorneys have been sanctioned like this for violating court rules by Hill. All I know is that if I were to ever get in trouble with the law, I think I'd want Mr. Genis on my side. Just sayin.

A great deal has been entered into the news about discrepancies surrounding Kasi Beutel's credibility.. such as personal misrepresentations on her marriage certificate, filing bankruptcy in the tune of six digits for credit card debt .. as well as professionly, inburning evidence against a suspect, because evidence had "no evidentiary value."

How would a Jury know since you can't prove the undocumented; one way or another?

These two, Corbett and Beutel, seem like nice enough people: and surely they are both glad to have jobs under this economy.. but to have a married couple operating on the same department, same shift, paves way for conflict of interest.

Judge Hill is a nice guy too. But his Grand Jury reports a murder as a suicide in the local jail facility.. it's obvious to everybody that detainee abuse occurred - and this pattern in covering for personnel has some of us wondering if he isn't being extorted by staff, somewhere.

CopWatcher and GoinSurfin, both new profiles created today. Genis fancies himself a cop watcher and a surfer. Not very creative. What will the next post be by? The Gambler? Been to Hollister ranch lately Darryl?

Well, let's see; what does the code section read: "A judicial officer shall have the power to impose reasonable money sanctions, not to exceed fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), notwithstanding any other provision of law, payable to the court, for any violation of a lawful court order by a person, done without good cause or substantial justification. This power shall not apply to advocacy of counsel before the court. For the purposes of this section, the term “person” includes a witness, a party, a party’s attorney, or both."

Capturing illicit collusion taking place between witness stand witness and court watcher, when there was a witness separation order in place, with a still photo, against which there was no order, is advocacy, supported by substantial justification, and is not against the express order.

Impeaching arguably corrupt cop with past moral turpitude practices, evils which government-loving judges all too readily hide and protect their cop pals against, is advocacy, and with substantial justification, and with good cause, and is protected by 6th Amendment duties of zealous advocacy.

Being an old desert constitutionalist, I fail to see the wrong - other than the judge's obvious prejudice against a zealous advocate, and the DA's smarmy faux innocence and victimization. I would take Genis's case, if I were closer. And would easily win. And would then flail the skin from the judge and the DA in their respective professional regulatory agencies!!!

And it is no accident that the amount of the sanction requires Genis to report himself to the State Bar. I am not certain why your community puts up with judges like that, but he would not last a week in our desert courts: we understand that the Framers envisioned a judiciary that would stand against overweening government, not become part of the overweeners!

The truly lamentable aspect of this is the judge's clear bias against Mr. Genis. The judge's actions can only be viewed as a despicable effort to silence zealous advocacy on the part of Mr. Genis and by extension the entire defense bar. As added insult to this obvious injury to the constitution, at the same time the judge ignores far more egregious conduct by the prosecutor.

The only mistake Mr. Genis made, was not to force the judge to recuse himself in light of the fact that his previous sanction attempt was overturned by the court of appeal. The judges prior actions certainly give the appearance of impropriety.

Total travesty. The DA and witnesses are warned not to engage in witness collusion, and they do, and nothing happens! All Genis did was get a picture of it (which wasn't forbidden by the court) because this cop (a known perjurer) would lie about doing it. Why not find her and the DA in contempt? Hello?

And why is the lawyer forbidden from asking about the lying cop's known history for committing perjury? That is basic impeachment! Was the judge absent the day they taught law at law school?

@deniseL You should read the 1st amendment some time. You might then realize that threatening to sue someone is not a violation of it. You might go a step further and realize that accusing him of violating people's free speech rights simply for speaking is itself hypocrisy.

He is competent at what he does ... which is to tilt cases in favor of the prosecution.

And DeniseL, I'm not Daryl Genis. Your assertion that CapMotion "seems to be the only one supporting his actions" is patently false, and even if it weren't, your inference that therefore CapMotion is Daryl Genis is intellectually inept.

Okay, folks. After reading with amusement, posts of the pro-law enforcement community accusing me of posting under nom de plum's (which I have not), I have made the time to post something pertinent to Chris Meagher's ineffectual attempt at accurate and impartial journalism: What’s factually and legally wrong with his most recent article regarding what happened in Case number 1398576?1. The caption is legally incorrect. I did not get “fined” but rather I got accessed a “monetary sanction”. A fine is meant to be punitive. A "Monetary Sanction is not allowed to be punitive; instead it is for recovery of actual costs incurred from the alleged violation. Judge Hill proceeded under the authority of California Code of Civil Procedure § 177.5 which does not allow for a “fine” nor does it use that legal term of art. It provides for imposition of "Monetary Sanction". There is a very big difference. Accurate reporting upon legal matters mandates honoring the terms of art, and Mr. Meagher should understand the reason for requiring the distinction, after all, he does attend law school.2. This legally incorrect characterization is repeated three more times in the body of the article.

3. This was most assuredly not “a fairly run-of-the-mill DUI trial”: July 30, 2011 started fairly “run of the mill” for Valerie Moreno, but the events that would unfold lead to what could only be characterized as a unique if not bizarre and highly unusual DUI trial: The cops did not pull Moreno over. Heck, they never saw her drive. A “concerned citizen” called 911 describing her as staggering drunk but the surveillance video at the Union 76 station showed a different story. After extensive interviews with DDA Justin Greene, the upstanding citizen could remember vivid details about Moreno, a total stranger, whom he observed from a distance for about 5 minutes. Strangely though the citizen could not remember why he had his 11 year old daughter out with him at midnight on a Saturday!Unexplainably, Santa Barbara’s best (Aaron Tudor, and his Mentor Kasi Beutel) decided it was good solid police work to use lies to gain access to Moreno at her home. Indeed the recording of the incident starts with whispers of Beutel to Tudor coaching how to lie about why they are at the door. Beutel sounds like a giddy school child playing ‘hide & Seek”. The “Ruse” as the good officers called it in trial, it turns out was not even legally necessary. Ever since People v. Thompson (a SB DUI case that made its way to the California Supreme Court in (2006) 38 Cal. 4th 811, it has been the law of the land that cops can “goose step” right over the threshold of a private residence without the inconvenient formality of a warrant … IF the crime is DUI.Genis scheduled the trial to commence when a key defense witness Navel Master Chief Michael Gutierrez would Stateside from his post in the Middle East for 2 weeks. Judge Hill failed to start the trial in a timely fashion, and then DDA Greene proceeded to burn up time in a strategic and almost successful attempt to render the key defense witness unavailable (that is until Genis succeeded in prevailing over Greene’s vehement objections to having the 20 year Navel officer testify from Italy via Skype, which was a first ever court procedure for Santa Barbara in any type of case: pretty darned far from “a fairly run-of-the-mill DUI trial”

4. “Greene mostly sat quietly” because he had no standing to participate. He is not a party to the OSC (order to show cause). He did however feign “smarmy faux innocence and victimization” after receiving “a sharp talking-to about the appearance of collusion between an officer witness in the case and another officer” (This is commonly understood as "obstruction of justice" and it can be punished as a criminal offense - and I have it on good authority that Corbett, Beutel and Greene were engaged in Obstruction of justice, but I am under court order not to disclose the content of the notes Corbett wrote which Hill ordered confiscated, though Hill at first refused to confiscate them, and Corbett told the Judge the notes were "of a personal nature and not related to this case" in other words he lied to the Judge about the very nature of the notes, hence my suspicions that he and his bride might lie about the act of coaching) as opposed to a $3,000 monetary sanction which requires reporting to the California State Bar- clearly the act of a neutral and detached magistrate who treated both sides equally fairly.5. “Genis asked Beutel whether she, in writing or orally, gave sworn testimony that was not both true or correct.” No, I asked if she had, in writing or orally, gave sworn testimony that was not both true and correct.”6. “Genis asked the question again with Tudor on the stand. Not even close. In response to Tudor saying he has investigated between 1,000 and 2,000 dui investigations but only arrested approximately 350, I asked Tudor whether he was aware of the fact that not all of his DUI arrests were good enough for the DA to prosecute", and when he feigned ignorance of that fact I posited the exact name and facts of a person he professionally opined to be above .08% and therefore arrested, whose blood came back substantially lower and without drugs. This merely demonstrated he is no ‘RoboCop’, it was not a "prior bad act" precluded by Hill.

BTW, Lawdy, Legendary Yeti, Johnny123 and DeniseL, please take note that I posted under by given name, something none of you has the decency to do. Your posts are new age bathroom graffiti - racy comments made by faceless cowards, one of whom has a blog site where he admits an unhealthy attraction to young Asian females.

PS Binky, There ARE a number of attorney's statewide that have read, with interest this article and message board.

And let's not forget the outcome of the trial: In spite of playing into a stacked deck, DDA Justin Greene went into the trial alleging he had a BLOOD TEST with results of .178% and his shinning star witness Kasi Beutel insisted she peered through the garage window and my client had NOTHING to drink once she got home. The jury asked the following question: "can we believe the defendant did drink once home, even if not as much as the witnesses claimed? After being told essentially yes, they returned a verdict of NOT GUILTY to the charge of Per Se Driving with a .08% or More. Although the jury did convict on the DUI, that has been appealed, and besides, I succeeded in getting the sentence offered by Greene cut virtually in half.

Look at all of these new screen names just created! Daryl thinks everyone is stupid and can't figure out he is posting the same non-sense under different names. Daryl you were fined for these types of shannaigans! Now I see why you lose all your cases... oh boy what a sad way to act.

Look at the attryds post at 3 am. Who is up at 3 am? Same wording as the other Daryl posts too. Profile created that day and adamantly defends Daryl. Then when you look at old Daryl posts you see where he used to post at 2 or 3 in the morning. Boy some people are pretty pathetic to create so many fake screen names. I guess that is the only way to get anyone to support you. I hope judge Hill sees these posts. I doubt Daryl is helping his case. If I got a DUI I wouldn't hire Daryl. I am sure the whole normal legal community hate him for these type of childish antics.

Mr. Genis has chosen an area of law in which most of his clients are guilty to some degree and there best defense is to cast doubt on the scientific accuracy of the evidence, the character of the arresting officer, or the legality of the arrest procedure. While these are valid defenses and it is Mr. Genis sworn duty to present them, the defenses are far from demonstrations of innocence. But what you going to do when your client was out driving very late at night with alchohol in his or her blood. All persons accused of a crime are entitled to a vigorous defense. I have held forth on these posts about my personal feelings about the immorality and irresponsibility of drinking and driving. Also, I believe a second DUI conviction should result in the permanent loss of one's drivers license. Finally, I have no simpathy for someone would sustains injuries while resisting arrest. All that said, Genis has a tough job defending drunk drivers and one might expect him to pull all the tricks he can. He probably considers the $3,000 sanction the cost of doing his job properly.

Wow. Isn't this about a lawyer caught using dirty tricks to keep drunk drivers on our streets, and nothing more? I am not a cop, but I do believe in the rule of law, and behavior like this (filming witnesses in court, taking photos when told not to by the judge) is unprofessional and gives lawyers everywhere a bad name.

Does everyone know that "denise" and "legendari" are DAs? That explains their anti-liberty vitriol. [DAs are anti-liberty until they get in trouble, and then they come running for help!] I am certain they are getting their brownie points with the judiciary for their genuflecting and repressive commentary.

Does everyone in that apparently benighted area think judicial abuses of defense attorneys is acceptable in this Republic? Are you all ignorant of the reality that it is the defense Bar that keeps you all safe from overweening government?

It is no accident that it was John Adams, a criminal defense attorney, who was the founder of the American conservative movement, because defense attorneys believe in enforcing the Constitution; prosecutors and their cop chums [and apparently their judge pals over there] believe in enforcing the statutes, and it is the collision between enforcement of statutes ["go to jail"] and enforcement of the Constitution ["back down, Mr. Government"] that keeps our regime of ordered liberty in the proper balance between order and liberty.

Well, at least we know that _that_ DG is the real one as the twisted and self-righteous reasoning (not to mention the hilarious attempts at spelling ("nom de plum's," are you kidding me?) are dead giveaways if you've ever read any of his other public postings. Seriously, man, get someone else to read this stuff over first before you put it out in any public forum. You're embarrassing yourself.

Judge Brian Hill clearly does not like Genis, because Genis can't be bullied by a judge who doesn't hesitate to use his power to help the city, IAD, the city attorney, the mayor, and the Council cover for a crooked cop. (What happened to the "independent investigation" of Beutel we were promised by the Mayor?)

Genis, as annoying as he may be, is not afraid to speak truth to power. Attorneys like him are what stand between gross abuse of power by judges and citizens at large. Dislike him if you must (do you know him?), but be very thankful there are attorneys like him.

So nice to meet you, Sir "capmotion," Esq., (of the High & Mighty League Of Extra-Ordinary DUI Defense Lawyers!)

However I was quite crest-fallen to see nary a Crest, or Emblem, Tapestry, or Herald within your cyber-fortress of online Drunk Representation.

Surely a practice which serves NOT ONLY as an ally to inebriates, but has the wherewithal to master advocacy for homicides, sexual assaults (misspelled on your website, I'm sorry to report), DWI's, misdemeanors (also misspelled), felonies -- including court cases for adults & juveniles -- should marshal a Coat of Arms detailing as much, if not a Heraldic Badge or two.

What a truly ridiculous post. An "ally to inebriates"? Why not just take the officer's word for it and put the accused in jail without a trial (I suggest you go back and read the various revelations about Beutel)? Do you understand the legal system at all? Or the reason for having a defense attorney? Jeez....

We need Darryl, in his last case, the person was found guilty of DUI, but not guilty of being above 0.08 BAC. This means you can get a DUI even if you are not legally drunk. Conviction boils down to the officer's evaluation at the time of the arrest. If guilt or innocence is decided by one persons opinion, credibility becomes huge! I would want someone like Mr. Genis to make sure I'm getting treated fairly.

Ahhh, the age of the internet. One side has friends, allies, and aliases making supportive posts as does the other. And then there are posts from parties who are not involved yet support one side or another. How to discern which is which? Who was right? Do we have the whole truth? Do hidden agendas exist? Therein lies the fun. Add in some misspellings (and I am not referring to Tori) and it becomes quite an entertaining read.So I must respectfully ask, Mr. Genis, what kind of work does a "Navel officer" do for 20 years? Oranges? Count innies versus outies?

Dear DeniseL,I propose that you and I meet at the office of the Independent, and I authorize them to disclose to you each and every name I have posted under on this article.

After the Independent proves to you that this name (DarrylGenis) is the ONLY one I have posted under, you will return to this board and report back that your accusations to the contrary are dead wrong.

Oh, and whoever made a big point about my posting at 3 am, please note the current time as 11:00 am.

As for the one mocking "navel" instead of "naval", I stand guilty of the obvious misspelling, and deserving of the insuring jokes.

Part of the reason the public require defense attorneys is that, all too often than not throughout history, extortionists have done more damage than good for society.

Why Binky, do you think officers are called, "cops." -?

Have you ever considered the framework of their badges and why they appear to be scallops?

The Constitution was created to protect us from oppression. Yet, no one is forcing you to go out on the road and drive, anyway.

A system that sustains itself on other peoples taxes that doesn't quality assure conduct, ethics and procedure leads to various levels of totalitarianism that can be observed in the (formerly known USSR), of course the Third Reich, and even under the current improverished conditions found in Mexico.

But you Binky, are worried about various forms of witch hunts that don't go unchecked. A person doesn't even have to be drunk, to drive stupid. When will we finally have laws against your brand of stupidity, Binky?

I'm thinking sooner than you might realize.. and you'll be wishing someone would represent you.

As anyone who has read my prior posts can attest, I've never been a fan of Judge Hill, but Mr. Genis again demonstrates that he feels it appropriate to litigate his cases online instead of in court where he belongs.

Mr. Genis is not doing any of this out of an impulse to right all the wrongs of the criminal justice system and to bring all evildoers in high places to justice, but only to MAKE A BUCK defending those who screw up and drive while under the influence. As Eckermann pointed out earlier, most of Mr. Genis' clients are at least somewhat guilty. Mr. Genis tries to throw enough mud at the arresting officer/DA/crime lab/judge/whatever so as to create enough doubt and chaos that his client is let off the hook.

These tactics are nothing new; Mr. Genis is just more flamboyantly visible using them than others have been. I could be wrong, but I think eventually Mr. Genis is heading for sanctions from the State Bar because of his behavior.

I think this forum exists for people to express their opinions. That's all. I think for Mr. Genis to use this forum to try to convince us out here in Internetland that his cause is righteous and every cop or judge he's ever opposed or disagreed with him in court is a corrupt scoundrel is a waste of everyone's time, and calling people here who happen to disagree with him cowardly is just a continuation of his courtroom behavior. Sling all the mud you want at me, Mr. Genis, because it just doesn't matter. Go back to court where you belong, and defend your clients there.

I don't think the Independent has a legal obligation to confirm identities one way or another, DeniseL, except maybe they would be required if a warrant or court order was involved.

Regardless whether they'd be willing to however, what is the purpose of your cause? To determine if a guy you don't trust anyway is telling the truth about his screen name identity, having little to do with the merits of the article or case in hand?

Seems like a strategy to filibuster as tactical strategy on behalf of your municipal agency interest.

I can only imagine people like you, DeniseL, would love to circumvent the online forum free speech capacity in sharing ideas, if possible.. while compromising people's privacy.

Remember DeniseL, if you harrass them over there at the Independent, the cops can be called and you could potentially be arrested, and charged.. in that order, even.

Now THAT would be something to write about.. not that the News-Press or the Montecito Journal would tell us; or that even the Daily Sound is even around anymore.

When a person, "logs on" you have them believe they are participating in a process, only for it to be completely virtual where identities, screen names, carefully worded comments don't appear to people who merely read online comments without logging in.

No doubt this is how you glean ideas for newsworthy features.

Wow whatta sham. What's the point of even reading your paper when your staff clearly has an agenda to sell us out as a society?

Exactly. I keep asking myself if I'd ever want representation from a lawyer who let's loose in public forums like this. And what would such an attorney's motivations be for such exposure? The answers aren't pretty.

Regarding the issue of identity in this forum, there are no guarantees because the Indy does not require any form of ID to register as a user. A user with a handle like "GeorgeBush" is not guaranteed to be the former President (unless they type something known only to the real former President).

I look forward to the results of the meeting between DarylGenis and deniseL. But note ... at best, the Indy will be able to provide evidence that the user DarylGenis has been posting with different handles from the same IP address (the same computer or access point).

At worst, the Indy will show that the user DarylGenis and the other user handles (e.g. Merlin2621) were posting from different IP addresses ... but that doesn't preclude those handles from belonging to the same person because he could have been using different computers or access points (at work, at home, at a friends, from Starbucks, etc).

The one thing such a face-to-face meeting would show with near certainty is that the handle DarylGenis does belong to the online attorney.

Maybe deniseL is the one posting under several names since she (he? LGBT?) seems so familiar with the process. irrelevant in any case. Stick to the debate on the issues, which I see as:

Do you want a Rottweiler for a defense attorney or a cuddly kitten? Especially when defending against a DUI accusation in a town loaded with people unable to understand legal concepts such as 'innocent until proven guilty', 'right to a competent defense', 'impartial judges', 'fabricated testimony', 'forgery', 'perjury', etc. and a local government committed to protecting their dirty agents at all costs.

Can you explain to to the people in this forum at least why your paper selectively omits commentaries from being observed by the public not actively engaged in this forum?

Binky's comments, for example, might be seen, but not mine from hardware never having signed up as an account with your online system.

But some of those who have, can.

How is the public to conclude you aren't attempting "to make public opinion" - or at least the perception, thereof, with such strategies?

Already, a city council person, named Cathy Murillo touts her involvement with the Independent franchise. She likes to celebrate "Cinco de Mayo" .. but many of us citizens might prefer to rememember the Alamo.

And hence, members of the public are bewildered, some might even feel intellectually isolated, when in actuality, they are far from being alone.

Do you think the Independent is actively culpable then in spreading confusion among the public for which it claims to be serving .. when serving some vague foreign interests instead?

Why is DG so insecure about his press? Let's not forget he was simply hired as a means to an end for the News-Press to boost the mini series written by that washed up "journalist". A so called journalist that writes about his own arrest. Even the national press questioned the NP's ethics.

It's pretty obvious to me DG was hired to inflate the press as a cover for the hard and sticky ethical issues surrounding the case. Kinda of like a condom between the NP's legs.

Those attacking Darryl Genis are just trying to take attention away from the facts. Judge Hill said there appeared to be collusion between an officer witness and another officer, who happens to be the witnesses husband. I am amazed the SBPD allows husband and wife to work together and more amazed that judge Hill allows the two to confer in court during a break. A client would expect their attorney to bring this matter to the attention of the court.

Are you that oblivious? Did you read the wedadmin post? You have no ability to disclose the multiple names you are posting under. But I think you knew that. So are you also DWG? You said DarrylGenis was the ONLY name you posted under. Seems like you got caught.

Santa Barbara government is a huge joke. The court system, the police, city council, probation, sheriff dept, health/human services, commissioners and county supervisors. Does anyone realize how these clowns have destroyed the lives of so many from the latino community? Its twice as bad for latinos. The real slap in the face is that most of the lawyers in SB who represent latinos are lazy and just throw them to the wolves, while getting get paid to do so. These high school lawyers have made a ton off the oppressive conditions from over policing and unfair justice for low income communities. Lance, please...what about our santa barbara children being deported, our disabled mothers being tasered, our children being expelled from school for minor infractions, police beatings, searches, sexual harrasement for domestic workers, gang injunctions, etc, etc.

The lawyers are opportunists who are capitalizing on the discrimination of low income people. They are members of the University Club in SB where one can find lawyers, da's and judges all hanging out like a club, an elitist club. Lets stop pretending like there are two sides. Its like politics, dems and republicans are they really from different sides or are they just wearing different uniforms both teams owned by the same owner - the rich 1%.

All of us know Beutel is a dirty cop and there are many in the police dept. This is what happens when people in positions of power act with impunity. They cut their teeth and built their arrogance on bullying the latino community, the homeless and immigrants. Now that they feel powerful and unstoppable, they want to test their meddly against middle class whites like Lance. The only ones safe live in montecito. But just wait until somebody's kid in montecito is a target - and when rich daddy gets involved and sues the police and sb gov. Then and only then will this nonsense stop. I guarntee you, the lawyer for that rich kid wont be from SB, he or she will be competent and not affraid to go against the club. Burn Rome burn.

So, we're degenerating into name-calling now? This is EXACTLY the kind of chaos Mr. Genis likes to create...

I see what you're trying to do there, DarrylGenis...I have never sent and I will never send you any private messages, inappropriate or otherwise, and I don't believe any of my posts in this thread have been removed by the Indy's admin people, thus I don't think anything I've written has been deemed inappropriate, either.

Further, I don't care whether you or anyone else posts under one screen name or fifty [which is think is kind of a dumb thing to start arguing about, since no one can prove anything].

I'm glad you're amused, DarrylGenis. I find what you do also thoroughly entertaining, so the amusement is mutual. And I will continue to comment on your antics when I think it's warranted.

I imagine you'll be disqualifying Judge Hill in future cases, but if you are ever sanctioned by another court again, then I will comment on it again, because in my opinion I find some of what you say and do to be unprofessional and unbecoming.

Do people over there really believe that because a cop says something, it must be true? Proactive constabulary was evicted from these shores in 1776 because it is anathema to the regime of liberty being installed here, and it never slinked back in until after the Civil War, when Lincoln proved that "war" and "emergency" and "public safety" could invite erosions of the anti-government liberty that was the hallmark, and aim, of our Revolution. I had heard things about the rabidness of the "public safety" forces over there, but I did not think such was possible in the western world after the death of Heinrich Himmler. What is wrong with you people, and with the electorate there?

I have a deep rooted belief in our constitution and the freedoms that it entitles us to. I also find it sad when people hide behind it claiming their shannaigans are for the protection of that constitution.

A fair, honest, and tangible defense is what everyone is entitled to under our laws. When a defense attorney creates a mockery out of our system by unethical and immoral means it does not improve or assist in "the American way". It creates more of a divide for others later. Mr Genis is the reason most people tell lawyer jokes or find them dishonest.

Mr Genis is motivated by money. Pure and simple. He does not do "pro Bono" work. The old adage any publicity is good publicity is very relevant in this situation.

I have seen Mr Genis work in court before. He makes argument and motions that get denied, frequently. The arguments tend to show a very low understanding of current statutory and/or case law, but that is only the appearance to the trained legal authorities. You see Mr Genis is more an actor than he is a lawyer. He caters to the DUI defense crowd only, why? Because there is a large amount of money to be made at it, especially here in party town Santa Barbara. Mr Genis is a genius in sculpting his public image. He makes arguments in court that he knows will never win but to his client, untrained in the law, they sound like he is actually working for them, and vigorously too! Genius.

A simple search of Mr Genis' client ratings on Google is a telling of how unhappy some are with his services; their displeasure in their outcomes. The true reality is what others have stated here, Mr Genis is representing the guilty who often get found guilty. Those that retain Mr Genis' service often find themselves a little lighter in the pockets for doing so with no noticeable achievement in their case.

This $3000 fine is better publicity than he could pay $3000 for, this continued rambling under different screen names is a mere continuation of his scheme. He is in it to make a buck, pure and simple.

SBunited4justice - If you think your living situation in the USA is as bad as you seem to believe, why don't you pack your bags and head back to wherever you came from? Maybe you haven't heard, we don't have the best system here but it's probably much better here than wherever in the world you came from! Quit your whining, especially if you are benefiting from all the "freebies" provided in the USA.

capmotion, the problem with SB is what sbunited4justice has said. The sbpd has been long breaking the rules with the latino and immigrant community. No one has stopped their racial profiling, violence, and untruths. The power has gone to their heads and now we have them following the same pattern of abuses on everyone. Our elected officials look the other way as does the police chief. What we need is a new police chief who will be respected and require his employees follow the law. Unitl then we will see in court arguments about perjury, forgeries, unconstitutional stops, etc. as brave attorneys defend their clients against these abuses.

"Go somewhere else" is hardly a useful or constructive response to legitimate objections to the misuse of government power. Once again, if it weren't for attorneys like Genis, certain members of the courts, DA office, police, etc. could exploit unfettered power. Our DA is a joke, our Council has no guts, and our police chief is an embarassment (concerned about the good looks of his officers' pants instead of cleaning up the PD).

If Genis were incompetent or unknowledgable he surely would not have sanctions overturned - more likely would have been disbarred. Maybe his unhappy clients were guilty, eh?

I only used ACLU as an example of people not liking someone or thing until they need it. First I heard of that suit. But again, as deplorable as the KKK's speech (and actions) are at best; one can't espouse free speech and deny it to someone else.

In response to John Locke's comment about Mr Genis' clients being guilty and hence their unhappiness, yes of course that is exactly my point!

Mr Genis is defending the guilty, but how is he going about it? One only has to read the reviews from the unhappy clients. They are pretty similar in that they state that Mr Genis told them that he would get them off and then they were found guilty, at a cost as high as $12,000.

That is exactly my point! He is in it for the money. By damn the outcome, he gets paid regardless, and these antics play into his show. They have the apperence that he cares and can work wonders (ala OJ Simpson defense) but most often he gets paid and the outcome is unchanged really. It is genius!

These multiple posting that he does on these blogs are genius too, they play into his role. He challenges people to things that can never happen (ie meet at the Indy or take a polygraph) to boost his imaginary credentials, and presto GREAT PUBLICITY. Genius in how crafty he is.

I would caution people to check his reviews though, such as Yelp and other reputable ones. Not just avvo which are anonymous and apparently he has self reviewed himself on. Read the ones that start with "I saw great reviews on here" and see how dissatisfied people are with him in the end.

Read Mr Genis own website were he even admits that his ads are misleading. He puts that on his own website!!pure genius!

Mr Genis can charge up to $12,000 from a person and get them the same deal as if they just pled guilty and kept the $12,000. I am in awe of the magician!

Dale1210, or should I call you nancy? You cannot self post on AVVO. All of my positive posts are real. So are the few bad reviews on AVVO. You can't please all the people all the time. And no criminal defense lawyer works on a contingency. You sound absolutely jealous? Get a life.

Dale1210: Well, of course, some are guilty. They are, to repeat the words of many, entitled to the best defense possible. Are you saying that ALL of Mr. Genis' clients are guilty, i.e. that the police NEVER make an error on DUI charge? Please...

And BTW, paying an attorney and being found not guilty is WAY better than paying the fine, being found guilty of DUI, and having it on your record. Duh.

I continued to be amused by the discourse until Mr. Genis choose to compare his statistics to that of an oncologist. At this point I found that he had a very poor choice of words.

To be clear, an oncologist works with people who, for the majority, did not make a conscious decision to get cancer. And cancer follows the 'laws' of biology and nature, the majority of which we don't know. So an oncologist is up against an elusive opponent who takes on a different appearance and form in each patient and which often responds differently to the different treatments. What might be considered a 'victory' for an oncologist -- a tumor removed, a mass shrunk -- is often overshadowed by a reappearance days/weeks/months later of the cancer.

You, Mr. Genis, work with people who make a conscious decision to drink and drive. While I know that there are some over-zealous law enforcement officers, there are also plenty of people who drink and subsequently drive while over the limit. Your job is to poke holes in the pieces of evidence and chains of events leading to someone being stopped and subsequently arrested. I understand that. What you are up against is pride and human nature, and what makes this country great is that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. From a defense standpoint, you have many avenues to use (e.g. in the case of the NP story from last year where the author first went after the validity of the device used to field test drivers, only to later have the case thrown out on grounds of an illegal stop) and you only have to poke one hole in the case for you to get a 'win.' If only the oncologist had such a luxury...

So, I feel that for you to compare your success rate with that of an oncologist is in very poor taste. And it does leave me with a question -- will you take all DUI cases that come to you?

DarrylGenis, I am very well aware that there is a lot of gray in the world out there, perhaps even more than you, and I suspect you're not defending too many people who are being prosecuted for driving under the influence of coffee or tea.

BTW, it's 'prescription,' not 'perscription.'

Further, if I'm driving while under the influence of prescription medication, and my driving is impaired because of that prescription medication, then I shouldn't be surprised to be pulled over and arrested. The law has been pretty clear on this point for years, as I'm sure you are already aware.

Dear I-O,Yes, the comparison is imperfect.No, I don't take every case I am presented with the opportunity of accepting, and while it was not you who claimed I don't do pro bono work, that is not true. In fact I am appealing Moreno's conviction for free, and I have not received a single penny on any of the work I have done on the DeNunzio cases. Furthermore, I was representing the woman who officer Tudor asked out on a fat on Facebook pro bono until she changed lawyers. (and I understand she has been re-arrested on yet another DUI which I am not handling, nor did I learn of it in my official capacity).

For those who complain that I'm only in it for the money, I'd say that is rather naive. I do what I do because it is my job, for which I am compensated, and I enjoy helping citizens accused of DUI much more than citizens accused of other offenses.

The legal definitions below appears to be basis of Nepotism occurring in the Santa Barbara Police Department between Corbett & Beutel.

DEFINITION OF NEPOTISM

§310.101 Coverage

This subpart applies to appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in (a) the competitive service; and (b) the excepted service in the executive branch.

§310.102 Definitions

In this subpart: (a) Relative means father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister. (b) Public official means an officer, a member of the uniformed services, an employee, and any other individual, in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals, or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement. (c) Chain of Command is the line of supervisory personnel that runs from a public official to the head of his agency.

§310.103 Restrictions

(a) A public official shall not advocate one of his relatives for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement to a position in his agency or in an agency over which he exercises jurisdiction or control. (b) A public official shall not appoint, employ, promote, or advance to a position in his agency or in an agency over which he exercises jurisdiction or control: (1) One of his relatives; or (2) The relative of a public official of his agency, or of a public official who exercises jurisdiction or control over his agency, if the public official has advocated the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of that relative. (c) For the purpose of this section, a public official who recommends a relative, or refers a relative for consideration by a public official standing lower in the chain of command, for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement is deemed to have advocated the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of the relative. (d) This section does not prohibit the appointment in the competitive service of a preference eligible if (1) his name is within reach for selection from an appropriate certificate of eligibles and (2) an alternative selection cannot be made from the certificate without passing over the preference eligible and selecting an individual who is not a preference eligible.

Nothing wrong with that, and it is true that you can't win them all, but do you ever tell anyone that doesn't have a case that they don't have a case? Or do you just go through the motions and let them find out at the end? I think that is what would cause a lot of people to think that you are a cheat. For example a carpenter might take on a job but if he bids it at certain price to later find out that the customer didn't tell him about the huge termite problem or maybe a previous problem with another carpenter that had stopped construction, then I believe it is that customers fault that the job might not be completed to his liking. After all the job that he was hired to do was not explained with all the issues. I think that can happen to a lawyer too. If a client is not forthcoming about the crime and there is evidence out there that might blindside their attorney, then the results can't be blamed on the attorney.

Apparently there are still those who don't understand or appreciate the right to a vigorous defense (totally separate from the question of guilt or innocence). THEY are the ones who should consider looking for somewhere else to live - Cuba, say, or North Korea, or Syria - those bastions of the rule of law and individual freedoms.

Ignore those who would limit our freedoms, Mr. Genis, and keep up the good work. I think we've identified yet another group of 'religious' fanatics - the no-fair-trial-for-suspected-DUIs crowd. Yes DUI is a crime and irresponsible. which has nothing to do with the right to a fair trial or to an active defense.

Sancho, as I understand it, nepotism rules basically prohibit one in authority from hiring or promoting relatives. I see nothing in any of this that makes it illegal for married couples to work for the same public agency.

Here is the nepotism policy from the SB county website. "When two existing employees marry, and a determination has been made that the potential for creating adverse impact as described above exists, the department head in conjunction with the Human Resources Director, shall make reasonable efforts to minimize problems of supervision, or safety, security or morale through reassignment of duties, relocation of transfer, If the County is unable to make an acceptable accommodation, then the two individuals will be notified by the department head that one of the employees must separate from County employment within 60 days. the choice of who shall separate from County service shall be the employees’. In the event the employees do not agree with respect to which one shall resign, the employee with the least seniority shall be separated from County service pursuant to Civil Service Rule 1103 (Non-Disciplinary Separation)."

Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill's Latest Antics are being Questioned by the Public, well It's About Time!Finally the people of Santa Barbara appear to have caught up to me in regards to the serious concerns I have with Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill. Just this past week Judge Hill fined lawyer Darryl Genis for questioning a witness whether she, in writing or orally, gave sworn testimony that was not both true and correct. Genis later asked a different question of another witness which the judge deemed was also an attempt to bring up prior acts.” I repeated it, I repeated it, I repeated it,” Hill said of his admonition not to bring up any prior acts of moral turpitude. “To me, this is indefensible.”

Since I am not as smart as Judge Hill I had to look up the meaning of Moral Turpitude;Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to "conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty or good morals. The classification of a crime or other conduct as constituting moral turpitude has significance in several areas of law. First moral turpitude is considered to have a bearing on the honesty of a witness and may be used for purposes of witness impeachment. THAT IS EXCEPT IN JUDGE BRIAN HILL’S SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURTROOM.

Now like I said I am not as bright as our Superior Court Judge Brian Hill and excuse me for saying this. But it appears that not only is the questioning of ones moral turpitude relevant in a court room; it is also standard practice according to the definition I was able to find on the Internet. Now the first quote I referenced from Judge Hill and the second one that comes up next were both pulled from the Santa Barbara Independent story written by Chris Meagher, I have included a link for your convenience at the end of this posting.

“Hill, for his part, said he didn’t want his courtroom turned into a circus. “I issue orders that I see as appropriate in terms of how I want this courtroom conducted”As for the circus reference Judge Hill made that horse left the barn along time ago Judge. You have to remember this is the same Judge who allowed the Santa Barbara District attorneys office to file an ex parte motion in the Peter lance D.U.I. case who by the way was also represented by Darryl Genis. If not for the opposing motion filed by a California D.U.I. lawyers group Judge Hill never would have acknowledges it’s unconstitutionality. The argument opposing the ex parte motion was;” There is no authority for the requested protective order, no authority that any protective order can be issued ex parte, and it accordingly should not be granted, lest a host of constitutional problems would be loosed upon the land.” I have at least another hundred examples I could write about, but I think this and all my other posting get the point across.

In closing is it time for the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office to create a PUBLIC INTEGRITY DIVISION for elected officials? I feel the citizens of Santa Barbara County have the right to expect that their elected and appointed officials will carry out their duties in a lawful, ethical and professional manner. They also have the right to expect that administrators, supervisors and the immediate subordinates of elected and appointed officials, who play an integral role in achieving the mission of the office holder, will discharge their duties and obligations in the same lawful, ethical and professional manner.

A District Attorneys Public Integrity Division would ensure that public and appointed officials and their subordinates fulfill their legally mandated duties. To this end, the District attorney’s Office should use all resources at its disposal to detect, investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct at all levels of public service. Of course a Public Integrity Division’s ultimate goal is to increase the public’s level of confidence in its elected and appointed officials. Of course this is truly an oxymoron because the first hurdle we would have to over come when forming a Public .Integrity .Division would be creating public trust in the Santa Barbara District Attorneys Office.!

Judge Fines Lawyer for Courtroom ViolationsDUI Attorney Darryl Genis Required to Report Sanctions to State BarThursday, June 28, 2012 by CHRIS MEAGHER (CONTACT)Please click on the link to see the full Independent story @ http://www.independent.com/news/2012/...

“At the end of the Independent story there is currently 71 comments from the public, I have included just a few.”

im going to try to keep this short and sweet. mr genis is freaking awesome

this is for the genis haters. if GOD FORBID you run into trouble with the law (i know you are perfect and this is impossible but lets just try for arguments sake) or if one of your friends or family do then guess what you are going to do. you are going to hire someone like Genis nuff said

I wouldn't trust the DA office to run integrity tests - intregity tests should be run ON THEM. After all, they are complicit in keeping Krazy Kasi out of harm's way, along with Judge Hill and the rest of the SB City Government Mafia.

Thanks for the County Civil Service Rule 1103 (Non-Disciplinary Separation) on Nepotism, there, 'sbs124' .. it seems that 'Legendary Yeti' might take a class on some ethics and common sense in how a conflict of interest with familiar relations under the same agency might run havoc in situations like these.

This is only one instance, and as 'pazzingtime' points out, no doubt many other problematic relationships like these serve interference in the police department.

'Dale 1210' .. don't you think that the criminal justice system also supports the defense attorney, economically? Why assume that such people should have to do pro bono work - especially with the overwhelming amount of caseload being enforced one way or another. I'm sure even public defenders desire to have a life outside of court.

Guilt by accusation is nothing new under the sun and one thing is for certain.. the accused are guilty of being accused.

It appears Judge Hill really took the wrong turn on this one. What sort of activity in "personal nature" would merit Corbett's presence in the courtroom, on municipal time?

Whether anyone really cares.. be it Judicial Performance or the Attorney General's Office is one thing, but an election is another.

'Legendary Yeti' .. do you happen to know when Judge Brian Hill is up for re-election? These commissioners never seem to campaign around here.

Yeah hes a relative. Hes my bro in the large loose knit family of santa barbara justice.

Jeez indidnt know there was a username contest going on or that this was a freaking english class. I feel so bad not being able to impress a north korean. If i knew it was a contest i woulda signed up for ilovewhiteboys but i think u already own that so i will walk away losing the contest with dignity especially knowing that i value american constitutional rights and not trying to undermine the heroic work of people like genis who are actually indirectly helping your pathetic existence.

The County's policy makes sense. I have known of a number of Sheriff's employees who have been married to each other over the years, so it isn't illegal, unethical or violative of County policy for married couples to work for the same agency. Typically, in the county each spouse works in a different division or different station, e.g., one spouse works patrol and the other works in the jail, or one works in North County, while the other works in South County, etc. In general, the issue has been worked out without the need for the couple to decide who stays and who has to quit.

At this point I don't know anything about the situation with these two City police officers, though I suspect the City's policy is similar. The SBPD officers don't have the option of working out of different stations since there's only one building, but I imagine the PD has found a way to deal with the issue without the need to let one of them go.

I could be wrong, but I believe Judge Hill was elected in 2006, and I believe they serve 8-year terms, but again, I could be wrong. Historically, judges' races don't get all that much media attention because typically the incumbent runs unopposed. Maybe there's an attorney out there who wants to challenge Hill's re-election bid. We'll see.

Buetel and Corbett may not have the option of working out of different stations, but Corbett DID have the option of not being in the courtroom when Beutel was testifying as a witness. It is inappriate if he was there on City time, but even stranger if he was there on his own. I am sure my employeer would find it very peculiar if my spouse was in the office while I was working, taking notes of a "personal nature". When the place of work is a courtroom where information shared between an observer and a testifying witness can be seen as corruption you can see why Genis would bring this apparent collusion to the attention of the court.

Good points, sbs124. I wasn't there, I don't know the officers and I don't speak for them. It's my understanding that typically before trials begin there's a motion to exclude from the courtroom all witnesses set to testify, but perhaps Corbett wasn't a witness in the case. I just don't know enough about the incident to say.

I do feel, however, that based on the Indy's description of what happened, Mr. Genis could have handled himself better; if he had, then perhaps the judge would not have had any reason to sanction him. In my experience if the judge tells you not to do something and you do it anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised if there's a reaction from the bench.

Further, if any agency is going to investigate the conduct of any SBPD officer involved at this point, it would be the SBPD, and so far I haven't read about any complaint being registered with them, or any information about any officer's testimony being excluded because of any misbehavior in the case at trial. So far I've just read about Mr. Genis' suspicions, allegations and accusations...which, basically, are just that, no matter how juicy they may appear in print.

It also seems to me that Mr. Genis and Judge Hill do not trust each other, thus I hope in the future Mr. Genis will exercise his right to disqualify Judge Hill from hearing future cases, and/or Judge Hill will exercise his right in the future to recuse himself from handling any cases that Mr. Genis is involved in. Then maybe we won't be reading about these two guys anymore, and we'll have different stories to comment on...

As any competent attorney knows, the attorney must be in control of his/her case. Wait and see how this plays out, as Judge Hill is not the controlling factor in the court room. The law is the primary controlling factor in any court room, or at least it is supposed to be. Thus any lawyer who has done his research and preparation must be in control. Problem is Judge Hill has oversteped his boundaries (required by law) in both making the underlying orders and his attempts to enforce those orders

Who's touched both Romney and Genis to find out?But seriously, the hatefest here is a bit much. You'd think he gave a millionaire a huge tax break or something.Innocent until proven guilty is the law of the land, what don't people understand? Maybe Andy Griffith can explain it better:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wL9Li...

Where is the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" relevant to this article? The Indy is reporting that Genis has been sanctioned by a judge for misbehaving in court and violating three court orders.

I wouldn't call this thread a "hatefest" so much as it started as a "not again" reaction, especially for those who remember the Peter Lance trial. It likely would have ended there had Genis' supporters (and perhaps Genis himself) not added fuel to the fire. A conscious effort to be sure.

The line between fueling the ego and self immolation can be a "fine" one.

A Santa Barbara attorney facing thousands of dollars in monetary sanctions over his actions in a DUI case is seeking the same against the prosecutor, claiming that the District Attorney's Office should have known that Santa Barbara Police Officer Mark Corbett's taking notes during testimony of prosecution witnesses including fellow officer Kasi Beutel - his wife - would constitute an "end run" around a judge's order aimed at ensuring a fair trial.

Judge Hill will get to show us all just how fair and impartial he can be!

He'll either justify himself in court, or before the Commission on Judicial Performance.

All these people clamoring about first time posters as if there is something wrong with that are claiming they are better because they sit around and post on every story for years as if their hundreds of posts really mean anything other than feeding their vast ego. Fact is people have to start posting at some time or another and important stories is a great way to start. Sorry to ruin your private genis bashing party but not everyone agrees with you.

A Santa Barbara attorney facing thousands of dollars in monetary sanctions over his actions in a DUI case is seeking the same against the prosecutor, claiming that the District Attorney's Office should have known that Santa Barbara Police Officer Mark Corbett's taking notes during testimony of prosecution witnesses including fellow officer Kasi Beutel - his wife - would constitute an "end run" around a judge's order aimed at ensuring a fair trial.

The notes were seized and remain under seal by order of Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Brian Hill even though the trial ended.

Meanwhile, court records show Judge Hill was concerned enough about possible communications between the married officers during trial, both in court and at home, that he held a hearing into the matter.

"Clearly it's a kind of misconduct for coaching of a witness to take place," the judge said during a hearing, requested by defense attorney Darryl Genis, which took place outside jurors' presence. "It's not appropriate, especially during the course of testimony for someone in the audience, especially someone who is from the same law enforcement agency, to be communicating to a witness about what answers are correct or incorrect and how demeanor oughta change, or whatever it is. I mean, that's just not appropriate."

In papers filed Tuesday, Mr. Genis states that the people's trial brief, filed by Deputy District Attorney Justin Greene, sought to exclude all potential witnesses during the trial of Valerie Anne Ramesa Moreno while those witnesses were not testifying - a motion agreed to by the defense.

"The obvious purpose of the requested order is to prevent witness collusion, and to insure that the direct and cross examination process are not contaminated by outside sources," Mr. Genis write in his Tuesday filing.

Can I be number 150? Seriously, if you all believe that Corbett and Beutel don't go home at night and discuss this case, these postings, Hill, Genis and testimony during role playing kink fests, then you all partake in 420 way too much. They are MARRIED! This potential conflict of interest should have never been allowed to take place. Why was Corbett in the court room? Was he in uniform? on company time? WTH???? Cam get off your whatever, and handle this. I hope Hill has reviewed the 4 pages of notes in question. He better do the right thing about it, or it may be his own little censure session. Oh wait, does the SBPD have possession of these notes and they will be shredded in 30 days?

My 2 cents. They're not worth any more than the 2 cents of everyone else. I'm not on one side or another here, but it seems like both sides are in the wrong here.

Is there impropriety going on within SBPD as well as the DA's office? While my answer of "yes" is purely speculative because I have no factual evidence on my own, I think it seems plausible. Information presented by Mr. Genis seems to support that.

However, Mr. Genis trying his case in the press or through his own postings is getting old, as is the number of mysterious individuals who emerge to voice support for him. Especially perplexing is "ilovewhitegirls". Besides the points that Zappa makes about the moniker, how did the early grammar (or lack thereof) change into the most recent post? Can you explain the change?

I find the sensationalism of Mr. Genis' work to be absurd. Unfortunately, this extends to the press and individuals who have taken his side. I will provide two examples. First is Mr. Genis' own post from 7:39am on July 5, 2012. It is a copy of the text of the SB New-Press' article, written by the current editor Scott Steepleton. The opening line of "...facing thousands of dollars in monetary sanctions..." causes quite the sensational stir. Why doesn't Mr. Steepleton just say "three thousand dollars"? That would be more straight-forward as well as maintaining the factual base of the current opening statement. Ultimately, numbers and statistics become what the authors want them to be, and this is seen in the second example. In a piece that accompanied Part I of the series written by Peter Lance for the News-Press in 2011, Mr. Lance states that his recorded BAC of 0.09 is one-hundredth of one percent over the legal limit. Using those exact same numbers, I will argue that a 0.09 is actually 12.5% over the legal limit. Both Mr. Lance's example and my example are factually correct; the difference comes in what reaction the writer is trying to elicit. Unfortunately for Mr. Lance, in his actual article he says that "...half of [Kasi Beutel's] arrests were for .15 blood alcohol content, which is almost twice the legal limit of .08 percent"; he uses the numbers in two different ways on the same page. While I understand his intent to show the the breathalyzer device may have been tampered with, his decision to use numbers in a way to suit his case undermines his presentation of them.

So it is the dramatization and sensationalism which gets to many of us. I believe in the right of every individual to have a fair trial, and for each person to have vigorous and just representation. However, Mr. Genis, stop making some far-reaching (and sometimes inaccurate) statements. It hurts your credibility. And while I applaud Mr. Genis' decision to work pro bono on several cases, I must cynically note that the only ones mentioned are the ones that appear in the press. It's easy to work pro bono when one is getting the publicity.

In regards to Darryl's pro bono work, the girl that he refers to he at first said he was representing her when he was not, a clear violation of the law. He was forced to take on her case in order not to get into trouble. The only way that the lady accepted was for him to do it for free, he was caught in a catch-22. He seems to be always over stepping boundaries and later trying to justify himself, very sloppy.

Here is the independent article, I remember reading about this and then Darryl actually tries to use it as a positive in his favor!

For the record, you mix postings upon this thread with another. I said I only posted under one name in this thread.

Ad I recall, I previously posted under DWG and someone claimed that was not obviously me so I changed to posting under my full name.

I have not posted in this thread under any other name, and contrary to your previous claim I can prove it: you pay for a polygraph and I'll take it. The problem is you won't cough up the few hundred dollars to help me prove you wrong. So please stop blaming me for YOUR inadequacies.

Typical Darryl, ignore the other posting about your false pro bono work! Not incorrect opinion Darryl, it is stated fact if you can read the Indy's article.

And amazing! On July 1st you go on a tirade about only posting on here as Darryl Genis, now we find out that was not true. What else have you been untruthful about Darryl?

You offer up a scheme that will never happen as a way to somehow back your play, simply silly. I challenge you to something more realistic Darryl, subject yourself to a sworn disposition under the DA's questioning about your online postings and then consent to have all your computers, cellphones, and tablets searched and examined. Like that will happen huh? As ridiculous as your plan.

And I don't mix anything, you were posting as someone else so I addressed you by your real name, you did respond to it.

Who cares if he posted under 30 names, It is like you two are married. Seems to me all Darryl wants is a level playing field. Well that, and his paycheck, but what lawyer doesn't? Cops snickering and chuckling as they trick someone into stepping onto the sidewalk? Probably doing the same after they get home together from court, or are having a beer with the DA somewhere.

And sorry hun, I don't work in the county, like most things you are wrong again. I don't believe in your antics and your misrepresentation. You are the typical kind of lawyer that people make jokes about, that is my motivation. You are money hungry, pure and simple. I have no respect for people like you. You advocate for dangerous drunks, people that have a chance to kill someone every time they get behind the wheel drunk. And you profit from that.

You try to say you are in it for doing a public good, but in the same breath you post on YouTube how people need to pay a lot to have your service. Your clients are then regretful and don't like your service, I have heard and seen for myself people who were greatly dissatisfied with what you promised them, them after getting paid you failed them in doing what you said.

Your antics on this board is typical of your behavior in real life. You rely on ambigious points to dispute with clients when they complain to you (ala your 1st post about only posting here on the Independent under one name) and later being caught in a false statement.

I posted the link, people can decide for themselves. You advocate a DUI driver for killing a person. That is how your sick mind works... Sad really.

I think you got worked over there Darryl. I don't see you having any response except personal attacks, assumptions, innuendo, and untruths. You avoid being caught in the wrong when it is pointed out to you.

I don't blame you I would quit if I were you too. The more you motivate me the worse it is for your business. I think word is out about you...

In a fictional movie 'The Cooler' a Vegas wise guy hires a crocked Cop to murder two innocent people 'execution style' on the side of a highway. As it is happening, a drunk driver accidentally swerves and hits the cop killing him, and sparing the two innocent would be murder victims.

In a word irony, not advocacy.

But you are sooooo smart, that you must have already known that, right DeniseL?

The fictional storyline is ironic. You posting it is advocating it. You should probably learn the difference.

The sad reality is that drunk drivers really do kill real people, on average 16,000 people a year. When you post that one of these crashes, fictional or not, is some how justifiable, is very telling of your mentality.

Wow! Sharing irony is the equivalent of advocating the act that constitutes irony? Where did you study logic?

Also, are you taking your statistics from NHTSA on the 16,000 deaths per year? If so, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the way they compile that number. For instance, if, during hours of darkness, a sober 16 year old hits a drunk pedestrian, killing him, that is reported as a "DUI death". If the same 16 year old, during hours of darkness, crashes and kills himself and 3 passengers, even though all 4 are alcohol free, those 4 deaths are reported as "DUI deaths".

Darryl, the only proven liar in this debate is you, not the all mighty government. Review your remarks above in case you forgot. Your conspiracy theory is "weak sauce", for lack of a term that I am afraid you might be able to comprehend.

Boy Darryl your web link references numbers from 2003, cutting age stuff you got their Darryl! And who runs that site? The web design is just dazzling! Is it the league of Extraordinary DUI Defense Attorneys?

I am glad that you mentioned MADD here is a link to their statistics. They actually reference their data, which University did the study, much unlike your unsubstantiated allegations. But hey that is what you do best, ignore truth, fling as much dirt as you can, create fake screen names that agree with yourself, and pray that at least one person thinks that you are right!

Below is some more material you can actually learn from. I would think that a lawyer who spends all their time only defending DUI drivers would actually be educated on this stuff. I guess you spend too much time online creating screen names instead of actually learning.

Here are statistics from the "Century Council", which is an association of distilled spirits makers. They make the booze Darryl that your clients drink before they get arrested for driving. I guess they are also in cahoots with the government huh Darryl? I wonder how you are going to say that those two are in bed together (I know... you won’t respond to it and you will probably post a web link from the 90’s next).

Of course you lie. Otherwise, how do you say above that 16,000 people a year are killed by DUI drivers and then cite the centurycouncil for the proposition that in 2011, 10,228 people ... died in drunk driving crashes?

That's 64% accuracy. Bellow passing in college. Only slightly better than flipping a coin. Now we know the measure of reliability of the content of your postings.

Once again your reading comprehension is lacking! Do you know what the word "average" means? Did you really think 16,000 was an exact number? I guess when you are wrong on everything else you have to Try a smoke and mirrors attack... Or do you really not know what an "average" is? Lol

And here are several sources that you can educate yourself with, all using the 16,000 average number. There are plenty more too Darryl.

The sad reality is that people die each year from people that are drunk and drive, be it 1 or 20,000 people a year it doesn't matter. It is a preventable outcome, something lost on you because it would hurt your lifestyle if people didnt drink and drive. You make money from people who drive drunk, that is your sole means of living. You tell people that they need to pay a lot to get the "best". You try and champion yourself (probably in your own mind) that you are something they you are not. You are not doing the public good, you are in it for the money. You legal tactics are just like your posts are here on this board. You say anything, be it true or not, in hopes of confusion or to raise "reasonable doubt". You represent yourself to clients at first promising big, but fail them in the end on numerous occasions. You self post on your own reviews , much like you non-stop posting on here. People are seeing you for what you really are Darryl, read the other people's posting. You really don't get it do you sweetie?

Denise, you are trying to teach a blind person about colors; no matter how much you explain it he will never get it.

Darryl Genis (Denise you should include his full name so when prospective clients Google his name these posts will show and people can see his true persona), you just don't get it do you? Your shannaigans on this board and in the court room make you look ridiculous.